The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, a left wing lunatic (With possible mental issues) rushed Donald Trump while he was giving a speech. His name was Tommy DiMassimo and the reason I know he's left wing and crazy is simple...

He's got a Youtube page, you can google for it but trust me, this is 50% attention seeking 50% he might be having mental issues and today the dog told him to go fuck Donald Trump.

Of course Trump will probably play this as proof that the Left are the real violent extremists or something along those lines.

[Xisiqomelir]

The most anti-Trump elements will be purged, and the most pro-Trump elements will be rewarded, but for him to fundamentally alter the characteristics of the Party he'll need a deeper historical basis for legacy like a 2nd term (like Reagan or Clinton), or a successful turnover of power to his VP (also like Reagan, and very unlike Clinton).

I'm not denying that he will change the makeup of the party with a win, though. I'm pretty sure the first plank to get tossed out of the big tent will be neolibertarian economics, i.e. "Free Trade Agreements are always good for the United States, no matter the counterparty".

You go a bit far with the idea of 'Trump' and 'win' and 'Presidency' with my question. After all, Goldwater didn't win the Presidency, very much so because many Republicans considered it a mark of loyalty to not vote for such an extremist member into such an office. In fact many voted for Johnson. 'Win' goes only so far as the 'Primary' here.

Well, it is your own hypothetical, so you clearly don't find the idea that outlandish.

A path to victory I've been considering lately for the Donald would be flipping NY in the Electoral College. A political blogger did some good back-of-the-envelope calculations on the topic here.

[Broomstick]

In other news, a left wing lunatic (With possible mental issues) rushed Donald Trump while he was giving a speech. His name was Tommy DiMassimo and the reason I know he's left wing and crazy is simple...

He's got a Youtube page, you can google for it but trust me, this is 50% attention seeking 50% he might be having mental issues and today the dog told him to go fuck Donald Trump.

Of course Trump will probably play this as proof that the Left are the real violent extremists or something along those lines.

What do you mean "probably"? He already has, claiming the guy is an ISIS member and saying he should be in jail. (I haven't looked at the guy's YouTube page). He also made noises about how if the secret service hadn't jumped to surround him he would have enjoyed punching the guy.

He's also called Sanders a communist and claims his (Trump's) people are just defending themselves.

Although I've heard the term "Bernshirt" in reference to Sander supporters from the Trump camp, it's not that crowd whose shirt color I'm concerned about. Trump's scapegoating is despicable, his encouragement of violence reprehensible, and if he wins I have no doubt he'll go full bore after anyone who did or is opposing him, contrary to long-standing tradition and law in the US of not retaliating for people who supported your running opposition.

[Raw Shark]

I wore a plain green t-shirt to the Colorado Caucus, and I was by far not the only one in the Sanders camp.

[Edi]

And that ISIS thing the conservative blogs are all in a tizzy about is a hoax.

Trump also fucked that up and gave the game away on Meet the Press.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders responded to the issue of the protests and violence in tonight's town hall on CNN, once again calling Trump a pathological liar, saying that he does not support violence but can't be held accountable for what every person who votes for him does, and saying that Trump is inciting violence.

[Purple]

How is it that when a trump supporter does something violent thats Trump inciting violence but when someone elses supporters do it than they can't be held accountable for what their voters do? I mean it's not like I've ever seen a direct quote from Trump saying "Go hurt/kill that person/people" either.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh please.

Their has been a string of documented violent incidents involve both Trump supporters and security at his events, and which has been repeatedly discussed in this thread.

Trump has thrown fuel on the fire not only with his general hateful rhetoric, but with shit like saying maybe a protester who was assaulted deserved to be roughed up, talking about the "good old days" when protesters went out on stretchers, and recently (as Sanders mentioned in the town hall tonight) offering to pay the legal fees for a man who punched someone.

It isn't just some of his supporters doing bad things. It is something he has actively encouraged and condoned. No, he hasn't (too my knowledge) explicitly said "hurt/kill that person/people", probably because he could be nailed for incitement then, but he knows how to stoke the fire without being explicit enough to potentially open himself up to arrest/law suites, even when his meaning is real fucking obvious.

[Knife]

How is it that when a trump supporter does something violent thats Trump inciting violence but when someone elses supporters do it than they can't be held accountable for what their voters do? I mean it's not like I've ever seen a direct quote from Trump saying "Go hurt/kill that person/people" either.

Simple, in Trump events we have actual TV footage of him egging it on, saying he'd like to be down there punching the 'insert other', and constantly talking about how he would and should kick out, abuse, rough up other people.

In Sanders events he says nothing of the sort and when something happens even close to it, he denounces it.

[Purple]

Still, I have newer seen him explicitly order anything. And for as long as that does not happen I can't see how he can be held responsible for what people do.

[The Romulan Republic]

Legally, he probably can't be.

Morally, however, he holds some responsibility for the climate he has created and the actions he is condoning.

[Broomstick]

Still, I have newer seen him explicitly order anything.

Yes, that's probably the point - he never explicitly orders anything, but he strongly implies his approval. Purple, you're shit at subtle social nuances, this may be a situation where you just have to the word of others. Trump is most certainly encouraging violence, then denying any responsibility when it happens. It's always someone else's fault when something negative happens. That's a terrible quality in someone who wants to be a leader, and something people have talked about Trump having for decades.

[Purple]

Still, I have newer seen him explicitly order anything.

Yes, that's probably the point - he never explicitly orders anything, but he strongly implies his approval. Purple, you're shit at subtle social nuances, this may be a situation where you just have to the word of others. Trump is most certainly encouraging violence, then denying any responsibility when it happens. It's always someone else's fault when something negative happens. That's a terrible quality in someone who wants to be a leader, and something people have talked about Trump having for decades.

You do not understand my point. Simply put I do not feel it is right to blame anyone for "encouraging" something. Either he explicitly orders it and this it is his fault or he does not and thus it is not.

Legally, he probably can't be.

Morally, however, he holds some responsibility for the climate he has created and the actions he is condoning.

As far as I am concerned the two are one and the same.

[Terralthra]

Yes, Purple, we know you have a broken position on ethics. We've had entire threads on it. It's clear you've done literally zero reading or thinking about legalism as a busted position on morality since then. Please don't drag this nonsense into a thread people are trying to read for news and current events.

[Broomstick]

Still, I have newer seen him explicitly order anything.

Yes, that's probably the point - he never explicitly orders anything, but he strongly implies his approval. Purple, you're shit at subtle social nuances, this may be a situation where you just have to the word of others. Trump is most certainly encouraging violence, then denying any responsibility when it happens. It's always someone else's fault when something negative happens. That's a terrible quality in someone who wants to be a leader, and something people have talked about Trump having for decades.

You do not understand my point. Simply put I do not feel it is right to blame anyone for "encouraging" something. Either he explicitly orders it and this it is his fault or he does not and thus it is not.

OK, you don't feel that way.

However, there is an offense called "inciting a riot" which is on the books.

From USLegal.com

Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

Please note that is a Federal law, although most states add further refinements and penalties.

So even if YOU do not "feel" that Trump is in any way responsible for violent actions by his followers the US legal system might hold him responsible because the rest of us "feel" that people who encourage other people to be violent should be held responsible.

[Knife]

You do not understand my point. Simply put I do not feel it is right to blame anyone for "encouraging" something. Either he explicitly orders it and this it is his fault or he does not and thus it is not.

I almost feel like you're trolling with this statement. It is truly a 'please don't throw me into the briar patch' action to egg on violent behavior, have multiple TV outlets and adds showing how you egg on earlier acts of violence, talk about how you 'would punch that guy in the face if you were closer', tell the crowd to 'throw out' people, and the assorted other bits and pieces. Let alone the out and out racist red meat he fed the crowds leading up to the current affairs.

I mean seriously? Does he need to do one of those over done, dramatic, slow motion 'wink wink' bits for you? Yeeesh.

Say what you will, but TYT ripped not only Trump but the media for it all, hope it spreads.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still, I have newer seen him explicitly order anything.

Yes, that's probably the point - he never explicitly orders anything, but he strongly implies his approval. Purple, you're shit at subtle social nuances, this may be a situation where you just have to the word of others. Trump is most certainly encouraging violence, then denying any responsibility when it happens. It's always someone else's fault when something negative happens. That's a terrible quality in someone who wants to be a leader, and something people have talked about Trump having for decades.

You do not understand my point. Simply put I do not feel it is right to blame anyone for "encouraging" something. Either he explicitly orders it and this it is his fault or he does not and thus it is not.

Legally, he probably can't be.

Morally, however, he holds some responsibility for the climate he has created and the actions he is condoning.

As far as I am concerned the two are one and the same.

If you cannot see the difference between legally justified and morally justified, then you are not fit to comment on either the law or morality.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/north-caroli ... ay-primary

A strict voter ID law will be in effect for the first time in Tuesday’s primary in North Carolina, where an estimated 218,000 registered voters don’t have the identification they’ll need to vote. Two other presidential battleground states, Florida and Ohio, also vote Tuesday and have restrictions in place.

There have already been voting problems in North Carolina, especially in student-heavy areas, according to reports. Student IDs aren’t accepted under the law, and neither are out-of-state driver’s licenses. One senior at UNC Chapel-Hill who voted in the 2012 presidential election said he showed his Pennsylvania license and was forced to cast a provisional ballot, which may not be counted. His was one of numerous anecdotes to emerge in recent days of North Carolinians prevented from voting.


MSNBC LIVE, 3/13/16, 11:52 AM ET
Florida activists fight felony disenfranchisement

In the state’s early voting period, 2,567 people have had to cast provisional ballots—865 because they didn’t bring one of the types of ID allowed under the law, according to a report by The Nation. They’ll need to return in the next week to make their vote count. A group of 391 people said they had a reasonable impediment that prevented them from getting an ID. (Of course, these figures don’t include the unknown number of voters who were deterred even from showing up thanks to the ID requirement.)

The reasonable impediment provision was added by Republicans looking to ensure that courts don’t strike down the law, but it appears to be poorly understood. Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican, was one of those who used the provision at a polling place after forgetting his ID.

RELATED: Sanders campaign praises Ohio ruling that allows 17-year-olds to vote

North Carolina’s restrictive voting law was passed in 2013 after the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act. In addition to the ID provision, which was delayed until this year, it also shortened early voting, scrapped same-day registration, banned out-of-precinct voting and in several other ways made it harder to cast a ballot. In 2014, the law disenfranchised an estimated 30,000 people, even without the ID provision.

Meanwhile in Florida, more than 1.5 million people and more than one in five black people will be barred from voting Tuesday by the state’s longstanding felon disenfranchisement law, the strictest in the country.

In 2007, then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist issued an order to automatically restore the rights of felons who had completed their sentences. But it was reversed in 2011 by Gov. Rick Scott, meaning ex-felons looking to vote must have their applications personally approved by the governor.

And in Ohio, Republican cuts to early voting have reduced the number of hours during which voters can go to the polls. But in a win for voting, a judge rejected an effort by Secretary of State Jon Husted to stop 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the November general election from voting in the primary. Husted’s move was challenged by the Bernie Sanders campaign, which is popular with young voters.

Well-crafted to suppress the student vote, a major Sanders' demographic.

In other words, the NC results will likely not reflect the true level of support for Sanders. I doubt it'll be close enough to put the state's rightful winner in doubt, but it could effect the delegate count.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bill is at it again:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Bi ... 24682.html

Former President Bill Clinton stopped by a polling place on Chicago's South Side Tuesday morning to speak with voters on Illinois' primary Election Day.
"I want to help stir up voter interest, get the biggest possible turnout," Clinton said after shaking hands and posing for photos outside Beulah Shoesmith Elementary School in the Hyde Park neighborhood.
3 Officers Injured in West Side Shooting
Clinton appeared with Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Kim Foxx, candidate for Cook County State's Attorney.
When asked if he is worried about a repeat of Michigan's outcome, he said no.
Spring Breaker, 20, Dies After Falling From Parking Garage
"I mean in Michigan, we always knew it was gonna be close and we made a decision to try to make sure we did as well as we could," he said. "Hillary spent a lot of time in Michigan just trying to help Flint. She wound up spending relatively less time campaigning and we worked hard in Mississippi and got a great 66 point victory down there, the biggest one of the election."
When asked about Bernie Sanders' apparent surge in Illinois polls, Clinton made a distinction between the two candidates for the Democratic nomination.
Brian Urlacher Marries 'Top Model' Jennipher Frost
"This should be a race for president. There is a blame candidate and a responsibility candidate in this race. I'm betting the responsibility candidate will win."
The former President also made a stop earlier in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side, greeting young chidren and voters flanked by Congressman Danny K. Davis as well as Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
Tyshawn Lee's Father Charged in Shooting: Police
"It’s a big election and you know there’s been a lot of activity, so I just wanted to be here on Election Day," he said.
“Chicago has been really good to me and our family", he added. "I love coming here and I thought it would the best place to be on Election Day.”

Isn't campaigning at a polling place fucking illegal?

[Soontir C'boath]

In Chicago, you must be 100 feet away from the polling site entrance which if anything is not that far at all. To put it in visual terms, it's the length of two Chicago subway cars.

[Ralin]

It would probably also depend on what he says and does, I'd imagine. "Former president shakes hands and says voting is important" isn't campaign specific. Just because his wife is running doesn't automatically make him a walking Hillary Clinton billboard, anymore than she would be if he was running.

[Raw Shark]

It's kind of a grey area, legally. It might feel a little shady, but he has the same rights as any registered voter to be there, and to say whatever he wants per the 1st Amendment, unless specifically-prohibited by state law. Being a very famous person does not equate to a gag order.

[Lord MJ]

In other news, on the Hillary vs Sanders debate:

Supposedly Chris Matthews interview with Hillary wasn't a softball interview...

Also Bernie's "political revolution" = "Bernie Sander's is not willing to take responsibility for anything and will blame the people for not doing his job for him." And if "We have to do all the work to get his policies passed, why do we need him?"

As if you elect the president and then sit back and have the president enact everything the people want or need. Because that approach worked so well with Obama.

[Soontir C'boath]

Trying to find the article about Bernie's time as mayor in Burlington, but by the accounts of what he was doing then, he had to fight pretty damn hard to the point of exhaustion against the local established politicians there to get what he wanted done which then started to become easier when he kept getting reelected.

In the end, the answer should be, because he is willing to fight for us, but only if we put him in office first and keep it going.

[Broomstick]

Isn't campaigning at a polling place fucking illegal?

As already noted:

- he must keep a specific distance from the actual polling place, but before that place even out here in nowhere, Indiana I might have to run a gauntlet of candidate supporters. They can't block your passage (usually they have traffic cones and rope set up to delineate a corridor from the parking lot to the door of the polling place), impeded you, or otherwise physically interfere with you.

- if he's non-specific it's definitely OK (Vote! Exercise your right to vote! Etc.)

- A surprising number of people will join in political discussions either before or after voting (in which case they have to move off the path so as not to impede others).

- it's Chicago, there is definitely some more-than-grey-area stuff tolerated.